Optimizing the implementation of a multisite feasibility trial of a mind-body program in acute orthopedic trauma

Virtual Reality for Subacute Pain After Orthopedic Traumatic Musculoskeletal Injuries: A Mixed Methods Pilot Study

OBJECTIVES

Acute orthopedic traumatic musculoskeletal injuries are prevalent, costly, and often lead to persistent pain and functional limitations. Psychological risk factors (eg, pain catastrophizing and anxiety) exacerbate these outcomes but are often overlooked in acute orthopedic care. Addressing gaps in current treatment approaches, this mixed-methods pilot study explored the use of a therapeutic virtual reality (VR; RelieVRx ), integrating principles of mindfulness and cognitive-behavioral therapy, for pain self-management at home following orthopedic injury.

METHODS

We enrolled 10 adults with acute orthopedic injuries and elevated pain catastrophizing or pain anxiety from Level 1 Trauma Clinics within the Mass General Brigham health care system. Participants completed daily RelieVRx sessions at home for 8 weeks, which included pain education, relaxation, mindfulness, games, and dynamic breathing biofeedback. Primary outcomes were a priori feasibility, appropriateness, acceptability, satisfaction, and safety. Secondary outcomes were pre-post measures of pain, physical function, sleep, depression, and hypothesized mechanisms (pain self-efficacy, mindfulness, and coping).

RESULTS

The VR and study procedures met or exceeded all benchmarks. We observed preliminary improvements in pain, physical functioning, sleep, depression, and mechanisms. Qualitative exit interviews confirmed high satisfaction with RelieVRx and yielded recommendations for promoting VR-based trials with orthopedic patients.

DISCUSSION

The results support a larger randomized clinical trial of RelieVRx versus a sham placebo control to replicate the findings and explore mechanisms. There is potential for self-guided VR to promote evidence-based pain management strategies and address the critical mental health care gap for patients following acute orthopedic injuries.

Clinical Presentation of Adults with Traumatic Orthopedic Injuries Enrolled in a Multisite Psychosocial Trial

Objectives

Traumatic orthopedic injuries are a top cause of hospital visits in the U.S. The Toolkit for Optimal Recovery (TOR) is a brief mind-body intervention that targets catastrophic thinking and pain anxiety following orthopedic injury. This study examines the baseline presentation of adults with traumatic orthopedic injuries who were enrolled in our recent multisite feasibility RCT of TOR versus usual care at four geographically distinct Level 1 trauma centers. We also examine whether patient presentation varies by site.

Methods

We recruited 181 adults (Mage=44.16, SD=16.5) from four Level I trauma centers located in the northeast (Site A; N=63), southwest (Site B; N=44), southeast (Site C; N=44), and southeast (Site D; N=30). At baseline, participants provided information about sociodemographic factors, pain and physical function, and physicians completed the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS). Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the sample, and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Chi-square tests were used to compare variables between sites.

Results

The majority of the sample (88.4%) sustained a fracture, and the mean AIS score was 2.31 (SD=0.55). Age, race, sex, gender, occupation, or marital status did not differ across sites (ps>.05). Over half (63%) of the sample was treated surgically, and 28.7% endorsed taking narcotic pain medications. More participants at Sites B (75%) and D (96.7%) received surgery than participants at Sites A (41%) and C (61.4%). More participants at Sites D and B reported narcotic usage than participants at Sites C and A. Participants at Site D demonstrated greater functional impairment than participants at the other sites.

Conclusion

Although sites were largely comparable, we did find key differences in surgical management, narcotic use, and functional disability which may have important implications for treatment response. This information will be used to iterate and refine TOR for a future multisite efficacy trial.

Optimizing the Implementation of a Lifestyle Dementia Prevention Intervention for Older Patients in an Academic Healthcare System

Background

Interventions that promote healthy lifestyles are critical for the prevention of Alzheimer's disease and Alzheimer's disease related dementias (AD/ADRD). However, knowledge of the best practices for implementing AD/ADRD prevention in healthcare settings remains limited.

Objective

We aimed to qualitatively identify barriers and facilitators to implementing a clinical trial of a novel lifestyle intervention (My Healthy Brain) in our medical center for older patients with subjective cognitive decline who are at-risk for AD/ADRD.

Methods

We conducted focus groups with 26 healthcare professionals (e.g., physicians, psychology, nursing) from 5 clinics that treat older patients (e.g., memory care, psychiatry). Our qualitative analysis integrated two implementation frameworks to systematically capture barriers and facilitators to AD/ADRD prevention (Consolidated Framework for Implementation Science Research) that impact implementation outcomes of acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility (Proctor's framework).

Results

We found widespread support for an RCT of My Healthy Brain and AD/ADRD prevention. Participants identified barriers related to patients (stigma, technological skills), providers (dismissiveness of "worried well," doubting capacity for behavior change), clinics (limited time and resources), and the larger healthcare system (underemphasis on prevention). Implementation strategies guided by Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) included: developing tailored materials, training staff, obtaining buy-in from leadership, addressing stigmatized language and practices, identifying "champions," and integrating with workflows and resources.

Conclusions

The results will inform our recruitment, enrollment, and retention procedures to implement the first randomized clinical trial of My Healthy Brain. Our study provides a blueprint for addressing multi-level barriers to the implementation of AD/ADRD prevention for older patients in medical settings.

Multi-stakeholder perspectives regarding preferred modalities for mental health intervention delivered in the orthopedic clinic: a qualitative analysis

BACKGROUND

Although depressive and anxious symptoms negatively impact musculoskeletal health and orthopedic outcomes, a gap remains in identifying modalities through which mental health intervention can realistically be delivered during orthopedic care. The purpose of this study was to understand orthopedic stakeholders' perceptions regarding the feasibility, acceptability, and usability of digital, printed, and in-person intervention modalities to address mental health as part of orthopedic care.

METHODS

This single-center, qualitative study was conducted within a tertiary care orthopedic department. Semi-structured interviews were conducted between January and May 2022. Two stakeholder groups were interviewed using a purposive sampling approach until thematic saturation was reached. The first group included adult orthopedic patients who presented for management of ≥ 3 months of neck or back pain. The second group included early, mid, and late career orthopedic clinicians and support staff members. Stakeholders' interview responses were analyzed using deductive and inductive coding approaches followed by thematic analysis. Patients also performed usability testing of one digital and one printed mental health intervention.

RESULTS

Patients included 30 adults out of 85 approached (mean (SD) age 59 [14] years, 21 (70%) women, 12 (40%) non-White). Clinical team stakeholders included 22 orthopedic clinicians and support staff members out of 25 approached (11 (50%) women, 6 (27%) non-White). Clinical team members perceived a digital mental health intervention to be feasible and scalable to implement, and many patients appreciated that the digital modality offered privacy, immediate access to resources, and the ability to engage during non-business hours. However, stakeholders also expressed that a printed mental health resource is still necessary to meet the needs of patients who prefer and/or can only engage with tangible, rather than digital, mental health resources. Many clinical team members expressed skepticism regarding the current feasibility of scalably incorporating in-person support from a mental health specialist into orthopedic care.

CONCLUSIONS

Although digital intervention offers implementation-related advantages over printed and in-person mental health interventions, a subset of often underserved patients will not currently be reached using exclusively digital intervention. Future research should work to identify combinations of effective mental health interventions that provide equitable access for orthopedic patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Not applicable.

Multi-stakeholder perspectives regarding preferred modalities for mental health intervention delivered in the orthopedic clinic: A qualitative analysis

BACKGROUND

Although depressive and anxious symptoms negatively impact musculoskeletal health and orthopedic outcomes, a gap remains in identifying modalities through which mental health intervention can realistically be delivered during orthopedic care. The purpose of this study was to understand orthopedic stakeholders' perspectives regarding the feasibility, acceptability, and usability of digital, printed, and in-person intervention modalities to address mental health as part of orthopedic care.

METHODS

This single-center, qualitative study was conducted within the orthopedic department of a tertiary care center. Semi-structured interviews were conducted between January and May 2022. Two stakeholder groups were interviewed using a purposive sampling approach until thematic saturation was reached. The first group included adult orthopedic patients who presented for management of ≥ 3 months of neck or back pain. The second group included early, mid, and late career orthopedic clinicians and support staff members. Stakeholders' interview responses were analyzed using deductive and inductive coding approaches followed by thematic analysis. Patients also performed usability testing of one digital and one printed mental health intervention.

RESULTS

Patients included 30 adults out of 85 approached (mean (SD) age 59 (14) years, 21 (70%) women, 12 (40%) non-White). Clinical team stakeholders included 22 orthopedic clinicians and support staff members out of 25 approached (11 (50%) women, 6 (27%) non-White). Clinical team members perceived a digital mental health intervention to be feasible and scalable to implement, and many patients appreciated that the digital modality offered privacy, immediate access to resources, and the ability to engage during non-business hours. However, stakeholders also expressed that a printed mental health resource is still necessary to meet the needs of patients who prefer and/or can only engage with tangible, rather than digital, mental health resources. Many clinical team members expressed skepticism regarding the current feasibility of scalably incorporating in-person mental health support into orthopedic care.

CONCLUSIONS

Although digital intervention offers implementation-related advantages over printed and in-person mental health interventions, a subset of often underserved patients will not currently be reached using exclusively digital intervention. Future research should work to identify combinations of effective mental health interventions that provide equitable access for orthopedic patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Not applicable.